Life Preserver.svg

User talk:Lester/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ashton Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashton Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rode logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rode logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Quail Television, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Thewinchester (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Røde Microphones

Restored, per your comments on my talk page. Please urgently add at least a claim to notability - the lack of one is why it was speedied in the first place. --Dweller 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rode logo.png)

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Rode logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

Third opinion request

I have removed your 3O request, because there are more than two parties involved in this dispute. If you wish to pursue some form of DR, I recommend that you follow the RFC process. Adrian M. H. 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

Stop adding {{fact}} and other tags to the article of John Howard – Wikipedia's policy on biographies of a living person clearly states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". –sebi 05:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} tags are not reliable references, and should not be added in place of a reference. –sebi 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lester, please do not add the fact tags back into the article – if you read the policy I told you about before, you would see that an article about a living person on Wikipedia that contains unsourced information, the unsourced information must be removed, and should not wait for someone to find a source. Please read the policy Biographies of living persons again. –sebi 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've blocked you for 48 hours for 3RR and edit warring on John Howard. Sarah 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

YesY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per our email agreement that you won't restore the text for >24 hours and will take part in EA and discussions on the talk pages etc. Sarah 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: Sarah 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For the reviewing admin, a 3RR report was filed: here. Sarah 07:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the confusion came in. The first one looks like I deleted a paragraph, but if you look a bit further down, that paragraph is still there. I just added the line at the top, "used the now-famous". However, the other text is still there below. Thanks Lester2 07:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur. There was no violation of the three revert rule as far as I can tell. However, the block may have been justified for edit warring; this would require closer examination of the context. Given your talk page participation, I'm more inclined than not to assume good faith and unblock you. I'll request comment by the blocking admin. Sandstein 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I was just examining the page history in greater detail. On my first edit, I think I'm accused of deleting the quote of John Howard saying "We decide...." etc. However, one of the in between edits, made by Prester John (who made the complaint), seems to delete that entire paragraph anyway. See here [1]. So the deletions then seem to be going in the opposite direction. When I saw it was deleted, I restored it again. I'm a bit confused that if the complainant deleted the whole paragraph himself (in between my edits) that he'd be worried about me deleting anything. Anyway, I'd prefer if everyone comes to a round table to discuss the content, and hope that the Editor Assistant can advise me on how to bring everyone to that table. Lester2 11:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I just got the email you sent me earlier today. Sorry, it was snagged in my junk mail folder for some reason. I'm replying to you now. Sarah 11:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The page wasn't protected so I removed the template. Simple as that. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[2][3] Being a member of a political party isn't so bad as long as the editor doesn't break the policies of wikipedia. Being a former Member of Parliament however, to me, might present a conflict of interest when editing articles about politics... WikiTownsvillian 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps

Lester2,

The initial concern certainly seemed to be the fact-tagging, and I hope you noted that I indicated that some of the facts considered 'obvious' certainly needed citation or they could be removed. About the deletion of content while discussion is ongoing, it is certainly considered inappropriate to delete without discussion. I would not concern myself too much with a reminder not to fragment discussion. If you feel an article is problematic, requesting an RfC is fine; a wikiquette alert is about user behaviour, not article behaviour. Indeed, you could report the problem to the talkpage of WP:AUS - in a neutral tone, please - without violating any guidelines on centralized discussion. The RfC will continue as long as the page is listed. Editors will look in and add their suggestion; this will ensure that those disagreeing on the page will gain perspective how far their views reflect consensus. Hornplease 04:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard Family New Guinea Land Dummying Scam

I don't know whether you know, but there was a previous attempt to add this to the article on John Howard which was stymied once it appeared that the matter could be construed as shedding unfavourable light on the Howard family. It was OK when it read "They also controlled significant land interests in Papua New Guinea which had been granted to his family as a result of service in World War II. (sic)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Howard/Archive_3#Papua_New_Guinea_Land_Grab. The immediately preceding stuff on the talk page on Howard's appearance on the Jack Davey radio show is also instructive regarding some of the POV warriors. It was welcome in the article while a positive spin was put on it, but it immediately became unwelcome when a complete transcript showed Howard in a less positive light.

It is worth having a look back through the previous talk page material (including the archived stuff) as there are some hidden gems in there. AussieBoy 06:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Puppeter template.svg

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lester for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the case as the checkuser result was unlikely and I can't seen any compelling evidence that would warrant further investigations. Sarah 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mont St Quentin

I noticed it was an anniversary today and it seemed a shame to leave it as a red link - the article needs work as it was an important battle for Australians: not just because of the Howard connection - also three Victoria Crosses and a significant set back for the Germans ... Thanks for your comments though - it is nice when one's efforts are acknowledged. Regards --Golden Wattle talk 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, 'Golden Wattle'Lester2 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyall Howard

I sent an email to the email address you used to email me about your block. I just forwarded some of the articles that I found on factiva last night...I don't know if there's any that you haven't seen yet, but we can use non-online sources like articles and books and such. His story seems to have been included in a book about the war, which would be good to use because that is outside the context of the John Howard biographies. Sarah 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it is a rather unfortunate word to use. Do you know what the equivalent word would be in modern terminology? Proxy ownership??? Sarah 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I sent the articles again. We don't need to change the dummy word but if there is an article on the same concept we can wikilink the word to that article. Also, I'm a bit concerned that the PNG section of the article might have undue weight in the context of the overall article. I'm going to change the "references" section to "notes" and then add a "references" section for articles and books which haven't been used in the citations. And I think the external links section should go last. That's the usual format: notes > references > external links (have a look at Australia for an example. Also, I think it would be good to use articles other than that David Marr article as the footnotes because that article is seen by many as an attack piece. I think it would be better to have that in the external links but use different articles for footnotes. Sarah 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should restructure it so World War I is one section and then the second section would be post war, which would include his various business interests, the PNG stuff, CSR, etc. Having the PNG thing in a separate section high up in the article is the main thing which makes it look like an attack page. Sarah 02:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The headings might be okay, I'm just not really keen on a section and heading "PNG interests" because of the risk of undue weight, which is something people are complaining about. Do you have a picture? If it was taken before 1955, the copyright would have expired. Sarah 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries. It was taken in 1916 and so it is definitely PD now. Sarah 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag teams

I'm not interested in tag teams or edit wars! All I did was restore to the current version as per the status of the discussion, the version I removed is similar to version I think is appropriate for the article but until consensus is established the current one should stay in place, because it is factual there isnt any liability concerns, the question is whether its relevant to JH. Gnangarra 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Regarding your factually untrue mesage to Vassyana

Regarding RfM John Howard

Hello Vassyana. I had submitted the John Howard article for mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard, which was rejected. I noticed your signature at the bottom of the page, but there was no comment or recommendation on what to do next. I haven't been through a mediation process before, nor do I know what to do next.

There's disputed information in the article. Those who favor inclusion seem to be more willing to mediate. Those who want the information omitted seem to me to be less willing to mediate. There doesn't seem to be much room to compromise. Discussions are heated and personal. Edit wars are common. People get blocked routinely. It would have been nice to resolve it one way or the other just to put such a hot issue to rest.

What do you suggest to resolve an issue like this? --Lester2 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those against have compromised already but don't feel able to compromise further. Those against inclusion also feel that the Lyall Howard article fails notability and would prefer to see that article deleted as well. However, they agreed to withdraw the AfD and place a link to that article from the main JH bio in lieu of directly discussing the investments JH's father made ten years before JH was born and sold when JH was only ten-years-old. That was a major compromise from people who sincerely believe the Lyall Howard article fails notability. When you've compromised all your ground already, there is nothing left to mediate. Most of the people opposed to inclusion are very unhappy about us keeping the Lyall Howard article, but they have tried to offer a compromise in good faith. Furthermore, many people, including people who actually agree with you to some degree have asked you to give it a rest for awhile. I suggest that is what needs to be done to resolve this issue, instead of forum shopping across multiple venues: various admin talk pages, article talk, ANI, the Village Pump, etc. Also, people do not get blocked "routinely". The last people who were blocked (ie Brendan and Prester) were blocked because of their rv warring on another unrelated article. Honestly, this misinformation is starting to make it increasingly hard to assume good faith. Please stop spreading misinformation and forum shopping. We also need to be mindful given the approaching election of the fact that the two prominent warriors in regards to inclusion of this information have a history of other disruption on this and other articles with equally partisan edits. Sarah 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sarah. My conversation with Vassyana was not a formal submission to any mediation group. It was one-to-one conversation, so it would have been worded differently if it was any official thing. I don't expect Vassyana will be arbitrating on the subject, so I wasn't trying to influence her one way or another. I'm surprised how quickly you follow my edits. Do you manually refresh my contributions list, or can Wiki users install a bot to alert them? Also, you seem to think Brendan and I are POV editors, whatever that is. But everyone always thinks those on the opposing side of a content dispute are POV editors. When I read the Wiki rules, the copra plantation issue fits within those rules perfectly, and is not POV pushing. Sarah, I don't want to have a personal dispute with you, over article content. I like a lot of your work. I like a lot of the things you stand for. We disagree on the copra information. We probably won't agree on that one. In the next week or so I'll try to present a more persuasive argument for why copra fits into Wiki rules, and post it on the talk page. Cheers, --Lester2 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Like most admins I'm sure Sarah has a reasonable watchlist (per "my watchlist" at the top right of this screen) - I have about 3,000 on mine and catch a lot of stuff that way. The way I see it is that the claim is only relevant to the article if it improves Wikipedia's understanding and knowledge of John Howard. There are some things which do so which would lean towards a more positive view of him, and other things which do so which would lean towards a more negative view. But there are other things which have almost nothing at all to do with John Howard and adding them is not only, as in this case, seemingly controversial, but for no good reason. If my father had have been involved in something prior to my reaching the age of 10, the chance of my knowing or caring about it, let alone being involved, would be next to nil. If one is looking to question John Howard's credibility in public office, relying on a sugary comment by Howard about his own childhood (which also, to my view, should not be there as it adds nothing) then refuting it is not the way to go - stick to the "never ever"s, broken promises, switched views and other things he's done either in office, or as an individual before entering office. To some, the above comments look overly fixated on the copra issue, and speaking as someone that is trying despite time constraints to fix a whole heap of pages before the election (elections, electorates, MPs, issues etc), we have too much important work to do and not enough time to argue about this sort of stuff, and I'd personally welcome your assistance of the politics project's efforts elsewhere. Orderinchaos 23:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I'm not worried in the slightest about arbitration. Firstly, Vassyana is not an arbitrator (though Blnguyen is) and secondly, this is not an arbitrable case. It is a content dispute. It could very easily become a arbitrated case, however, if we wanted to obtain bans or topic bans on people who are bringing their political agendas to Wikipedia articles. What upsets me is that you are forum shopping, apparently looking for a particular response instead of showing some good faith and accepting what you have been told by numerous people, including those actually agree with you, who have asked you to give it a rest and move onto something else for the time being. And it also upsets me that you are making false and misleading claims all over the site. If you are sincere about editing the article within policy, you really should respond to the policy based comments that have been raised, instead of creating red-herrings and strawmen and then you would take up Gnangarra's offer to try to write this material in a way that fully meets WP:BLP, yet not one single person has made any real effort to attempt to do this. I can't help but wonder why people who claim to be attempting to write a NPOV article which isn't disparaging to the subject, don't simply take us up on that offer. I know that Brendan hasn't tried to because he won't be happy unless he can write it in a disparaging way, like he did the last time when he wrote that JH's recollection of his family as people with certain values, is "questioned" by Lyall's investment in legal copra plantations. Are you seriously arguing that that is consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV?

I don't really know what you mean about bots. I don't have any bots and you shouldn't run bots without getting permission from the Bot permissions group because if they malfunction, they can cause a lot of damage. I saw your edit on Vassyana's page when I looked at your recent contribs after I saw you on the Village Pump misleading people and giving them false information. I wasn't refreshing your contribs either manually or with a bot, I simply clicked on your name. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but I don't advise you to start running any bots on your account or you will most likely be blocked indefinitely.

I don't have anything against you personally and I found you quite reasonable to edit with on the Lyall Howard article, but you concern me very much as you seem to be completely singularly focused to the point of being obsessed with getting your own way. Meanwhile, you seem blinded to the fact that ignoring both pro- and anti-inclusion people when they tell you the same thing about having a break and editing something else for awhile, is only making the situation worse. If you do not have political motivations for editing, I don't understand the complete focus with regard to these edits and this article. Have you looked at your own contributions? You are looking like a single purpose account as you very rarely edit outside this topic. Have a look at any of the other involved editors contributions and you will see how dramatically single purpose you and Brendan look; this would really go against both of you and likely result in at a minimum, a topic ban at both the Community Sanctions Noticeboard and arbitration. Please consider respecting everyone's wish that you give us a break and go and do something else on other unrelated articles for a little while. Sarah 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable

Read this reference. [4], in fact read any of the references in the David Hicks article and try to find any one who says he was part of the Taliban and trained with Al Qaeda. Hicks writes home about it. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking by Prester John

You might be interested in Prester John "getting back" at you by reverting your edits in unrelated pages, see:

[5] [6]

--71.141.143.66 08:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that happens often :( --Lester2 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Headings

Please be sure to avoid capitalization in headings as with article titles, e.g. See also not See Also. Cheers. Richard001 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

Updated DYK query On 5 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article political donations in Australia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! --Espresso Addict 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitious advice

Hi, Lester!

Can I make a small suggestion? I think I understand what you are trying to do, but you must be finding it all very frustrating. Believe me, I've been there two years ago. Can I suggest that instead of making an edit loaded down with opinion, that I'm going to look at and immediately revert, you try writing something that I might grumble over privately, but I can live with.

For example, I really don't mind mentioning in various articles that children of asylum-seekers were detained. It's factual, it's an area of concern, it's something that resonates. But when you make an edit that is loaded down with words like "incarcerated", uses opinion pieces as sources, and either doesn't present a complete picture or implies something that is not true, then you are setting yourself up for conflict and disruption, because naturally those with other views are going to respond in order to prevent the article becoming unbalanced.

If an article is reasonably stable, that's a good indication that all editors are reasonably happy with it. Adding something that is contentious, even if it is something that you feel very strongly about, is probably altering a balance that has already been thrashed out.

A good approach would be to present your evidence for making an edit to an established article. Make your case ahead of time, present a good unbiased source, illustrate how the existing article is deficient. Perhaps suggest some wording. If nobody raises any valid objections, then that's a good indication that your edit won't be reverted.

I hope you don't want to spend all your wikitime edit-warring and wikilawyering and arguing around and around, because I don't. But the way you are going, you are eventually going to wear out the patience of those occupying the middle ground, and when that happens you are going to find life here very difficult indeed. --Pete 02:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of those who delete my edits are former high ranking officials of political parties. It's quite extraordinary how many there are. Don't you think that presents a conflict of interest?--Lester 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable rather than extraordinary, I suggest. I'm just a humble cabbie. --Pete 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You weren't ever a active working member of a political party? Reading the WP:COI pages, it seems that someone working for one company (say, General Motors) shouldn't edit content about either General Motors or the opposition (Ford, for example). It doesn't say explicitly, but I assume it probably applies to politics too. For example, someone who may have worked for one party (say, The Greens, just as an example), maybe shouldn't edit articles about One Nation, or the opposition (say, Liberal Party, just as an example). I suspect that quite a few of those who delete my content may have close connections with one or another political party, and make edits to an opposition political party.--Lester 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you are drawing a very long bow there. --Pete 03:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am. I don't know what the rules are about people with affiliations to political parties or organisations. Anyway, I have nothing against you personally, Skyring, I'm sure you're a nice guy. However, you and Prester play hard-ball (I learned that early on), and yours and Prester's editing style seems to consist of a lot of deletion and revert waring. I don't personally have any affiliations with any political party, but I don't understand those who want to hide past events of a political party of politician. If you support that politician, you should be in favour of all that he has done in the past. I don't support the hiding of facts, from either side of politics. If the politician has done something in the past which raised a lot of media attention, then it should be included in the wiki article. Whoever that politician may be. It's better to lay all the facts out on the table.--Lester 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And using 'Lesters' logic, it implies that he is a member of a political party. Shot info 03:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I'm a member of a party? No. What about you, Shot info? Lester 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you read my sentence, you will see that by using your logic on yourself, it implies that you are a member of a political party. Quite simple really. Frankly I don't care if you are or aren't. Your edits will stand or fail based on their merits and conformace with Wikipedia policy, not your alliances outside of Wikipedia. And for your information, it is absolutely 100% none of your business if I am or am not a member of, or voter for a particular political party or parties. My edits will stand or will not stand based on their merits. If you think that I or any other editor has a COI, then I suggest you go to COI/N. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke and completely failing to assume good faith. Shot info 03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Shot info, that's pretty heavy, considering you came stalking into this conversation. You already suggested I'm a member of a party, then you become defensive when I ask you the same thing. --Lester 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
<koff> using your logic remember. Not my fault your logical reasoning is flawed. And if you again read my edit, you will see I extend to you the common coutesty of WP:AGF even if you are a member of a political party. Perhaps if you extend some good faith and stop reasoning that people who "delete [your] content" have "close connections to"...well anything, then perhaps you will find that people will extend good faith to you. Understanding policy is a good start. Shot info 03:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Shot info, due to incivility, I ask that you no longer stalk me, comment on my talk page, or comment in my conversations on any other users' talk page.--Lester 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
'Lester', I gather you are refering to your uncivility. I will continue to edit without regard to your demands. If you feel that you have a problem with my edits feel free to mention them to the appropriate admin board, taking due care to note the failure of the Wikipedia Policy(ies) in question, and the necessary diffs supporting your statements. Thank you for once again failing to assume good faith on behalf of my edits. Shot info 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester, you can ask an editor you feel is harassing you to stop posting on your talk page and if they continue, you can just start reverting them without reading and without comment. If this is your preference, you can also ask an admin, such as myself, to watchlist your talk page and to help you. However, you can't enforce this on other people's talk pages and you will run into trouble if you start demanding that Shot Info is not allowed to comment anywhere you comment. Sarah 12:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Check Lester's contribution's and see how many are related to me. Even admin's have accussed him of stalking me. The problem with this dude is that he can't even recognise what a personal attack is. In examples like the one above, he construes arguments against his logic used and edits made as attacks against his person. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 17:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Prester, up until now, this was a private conversation about editors with present or past links to political parties. I hadn't thought of you. But now you decided you want to join this discussion, I feel obliged to ask you the same question I asked everyone else. Prester John: Have you been a member of a political party? Tell us about your political past, Prester John. I think everyone would like to know.--Lester 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lester, you don't have to retain malignant comments on your talkpage if you don't wish. You're free to delete/revert edits to your talkpage. It is your talkpage, after all. Relatedly, it's quite amazing that Prester should accuse you of stalking, given his userpage at User:Prester John/Evidence where, among other links, he maintains a diff to both your and my IP address respectively; and given the massive ANI page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John documenting his numerous transgressions. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re the original post - I have to say this is pretty good advice, regardless of what your opinion may be of its giver. It's a lot easier to edit here if you start by having a neutral tone and an editor's eye for what should be in, what should be out. In a project like WP Politics it's a given that we'll have active members of parties - the interest range is narrow and the political class are the only people who care on such things most of the time. However, I take a strong line against in-role party editing, or editing which solely or narrowly reflects that party's views and not the goals of the encyclopaedia (NPOV in particular). Orderinchaos 23:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the comment. I will explain when I have time, but I'm very busy offline atm. Orderinchaos 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war warning: Willie Mason

Thank you for the message on my talk page, but no, there is no 'edit war' and to ensure the matter did not devolve to that point I took the discussion to the relevant project page - WP:RL - and it had already been resolved before your warning was issued. I note that the other party to the supposed 'edit war' was not also issued with a warning. ~ Florrie talk 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudd and same-sex marriage

Thanks for the vid - a few interesting expressions, but he said nothing that I didn't already know or that surprised me... he's very predictable. Timeshift 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

JH

Hi Lester, That latest edit is probably valid, however the supporting link seems to be to an incorrect Age article. I think you might have mixed up URLs. Just a heads up. Shot info 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, BTW, a blog...could be problems with EL there. But I'm going to see how it stands with the Community (ie/ I'm not going to edit it :-) Shot info 01:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

For your advice. Alans1977 02:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages...

I didn't say you didn't use the talk pages. Rather, for contentious topics using the talk page doesn't entitle one to immediately go and make any edit. People should wait for the response and work towards a solution. Talk page comments doesn't mean one can immediately return to edit warring. regards --Merbabu 11:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of Steady Eddie

Hi, The article was deleted because of notability concerns under CSD A7; an "article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not indicate the importance of the subject". If you wish to re-write the article ensuring that it does assert the significance of the subject, feel free. If you require any help then please ask me. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles eh?

I've linked to them in all federal election result tables! IRV in the lower, STV GV in the upper. Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Racial policy of John Howard

Racial policy of John Howard, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Racial policy of John Howard satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial policy of John Howard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Racial policy of John Howard during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mattinbgn\talk 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were you i'd copy and paste the text from this article and put it in to some sort of more broad John Howard government article or some such. I just think the page has noteability issues in that it is either too specific on a certain area of Howard policy, or, could be considered by some people we know as POV, and would have a case as there's a page on racial policy, but not on other social policy, or economic policy, et al. Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rode logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rode logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludlam

Thanks for those links - quite interesting.

The ABC site appears to be just predictions, as they've got six winners marked even in states like Queensland and Victoria, which are extremely close and most definitely won't be known until the final distribution of preferences in a couple of weeks. I'd be a little bit careful about taking the one newspaper article either - I've noticed several papers jumping the gun and calling seats that are way too close to call on actual figures (for instance news.com.au just called La Trobe for Labor, which really won't be known for sure until every vote is counted). This is why I'm wary about calling the results of the fifth and sixth seats, and have only added those that have gotten a quota on primaries to Members of the Australian Senate, 2008-2011 - I don't want us to have to change the results later, which we've had to do before.

That said, I think the results in WA, SA, NSW and Tas are probably pretty set from the psephological commentary I've read, and I think we might be safe to add these pretty soon if a few papers start calling those results as certain. Rebecca (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's probably worth updating the rest in those four states as well. Rebecca (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
WA's so predictable - it's either 2+3+1 or 3+2+1, and has been at every election since 1984, and with an even higher than usual Green vote and 3 guaranteed Lib quotas I'd conclude he's in pretty safely. Orderinchaos 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good page for you to work on

I came across this, and in the spirit of USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, you might want to create an article cited with this type of reference? Timeshift 07:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial policy of John Howard

I have commented on this discussion as requested basically endorsing your page move. I see nothing to suggest you did not follow the correct procesdure for moving the article during an AFD. I won't comment on keeping or deleting the article to avoid any accusation of canvassing. Davewild 09:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on page-moving procedure.Lester 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

Lester, might I suggest, if you wish we (admins) would take action in response to your ANI complaints about Prester, that you consider removing your comment from the MfD for Prester's userpage and then in future staying away from similar issues concerning Prester that don't otherwise involve you? People who really are being cyberstalked go out of their way to avoid their stalker; they don't actively follow their "stalker" around looking for opportunities to engage them, make complaints or oppose them. You really make it impossible for us and I'm afraid that you are now pretty much in a "Cry Wolf" situation with many admins, particularly Australian admins and those who watch ANI. I urge you to refrain from commenting about Prester and involving yourself in discussions relating to him that don't otherwise involve you, stop checking his contributions and simply get on with your own business. If you were to do this and then come to a complaint with "clean hands" you would find admins were far more responsive and willing to take action. It was only a day or two ago that you melodramatically announced to ANI, "Help me, I'm being stalked" and complained that you were being stalked and harassed and that "It's horrible. It's bullying. No Wikipedian deserves this. Nobody. It is continuing, and I ask again for Admin assistance." Yet now here you are, following your "stalker", commenting on not just his userpage, but his username, and the articles he edits! If you really want one of us to act against Prester, then please stop doing this and stay away from him. Thank you for your consideration. Sarah 13:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was commenting on articles that I was followed to.Lester 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reworking MPs leads

Thanks for going around and doing this - a lot of these articles looked very messy beforehand. I'd been meaning to do it for days. Rebecca 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lobato article is a good little stub. If you're interested in expanding it some, the parliamentary handbook and the re-member database are really useful for Victorian politicians. It might be worth saying a bit more about the GM crops issue - I was reading the writeup in The Age this morning, and it's probably the defining moment of her career so far - at the rate she's going she might get kicked out of the party. Rebecca 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote requested

Here. Cheers. Timeshift 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

South West Coast

Thanks for the heads up - there's quite a few of these pages that were never updated after the state election. I've updated it anyway - if you see any others, feel free to let me know. Rebecca (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic image!

But! What is the source?! :P Timeshift (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Still not working - I can email others fine? Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PNG

Show me a reference that supports, not speculates that PNG had a direct influence on JH and his philosophies otherwise its just something that Lyall did and its already in the Lyall article. Gnangarra 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

Copied from User talk:Daniel, 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Hi Daniel. I want to ask your advice on how content disputes are resolved, as you're familiar with mediation processes as well as the content involved (John Howard plantations). I'm just not familiar with the processes within Wikipedia. There is still reverting going on at the article. As you know, I submitted it for a Mediation Committee hearing, but because a couple of editors didn't wish to participate, it never got to mediation. In a case such as this, where there is no clear or decisive outcome (opinions are divided), how can it be settled in one way or another. It would be great to have a mediator to oversee a civil discussion and arrive at some compromise, but what does one do when some parties don't want to participate? Do you have any suggestions for a process to arrive at consensus? Thanks, Daniel,Lester 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if consesus can't be reached by involved editors, maybe soliciting input from uninvolved editors to try and determine a consensus either way may be a good idea. Short of that, ask everyone involved if they are willing to try mediation (which is basically a negotiation discussion trying to compromise and find a solution which everyone accepts), and if they are file a request for mediation. Otherwise, there's arbitration if people are behaving badly and nothing else works. Daniel 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: Please reply here on your talk page, I shouldn't miss it. Trying to keep the discussion in one place :)
Daniel. Great to hear from you. The issue was recently rejected from Mediation, because some editors didn't want to participate. What normally happens then? I know it is within editors' rights to reject mediation, but does that also mean they are opting out of the debate? Some of those who previously chose not to get involved in mediation still want to get involved at the article/talk page, so it never resolves. Thanks again, Lester 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, although they may have changed their minds since :) If not, an article requests for comment to get uninvolved editors commenting to try and work out consensus, or else arbitration if nothing works and people are revert-warring etc. Wikipedia is based on consensus, negotiation, compromise and discussion, and if none of those work...well, nothing therefore can fix it :| Daniel 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain it, Daniel. I should then try for a second mediation. Cheers, Lester 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, probably only the recently-involved parties, and then only those who would be considered the "most involved", not those who have commented once etc. Daniel 09:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Response from Hamiltonstone

Just letting you know I finally responded on my talkpage. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dame Joan

Thanks for your note - I hadn't been watching the article any more. I see fromt he history though that the controversy section under discussion and reversion in November was not professional, neutral or referenced. See this diff as an example. I htink it should be mentioned and referenced but in a neutral way. I think it is somewhat significant but certainly one has to watch WP:UNDUE - ie not giving it more weight than it merits. Can't attend to the research and form of words right now though I did have a link to an ABC profile in my talk page comment. Regards --Matilda talk 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Source

Hoorah! Love the slideshow! :D Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:140206 PC frontpage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:140206 PC frontpage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject talk page

I took the considered decision that nothing was achieved or gained for anybody involved, the thing had the potential to flare up once again once people come back from Christmas holidays, and no positive purpose could be served to the encyclopaedia by maintaining it. Orderinchaos 20:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And this differs from Wikipedia standard fare, how? /cynical Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

White Aust policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.whiteaustralia.jpg - fixed, could do with a better rationale though... it really isn't sufficient. Betacommandbot has been setup to go around making sure the basics of FU images are correct, ie: has the neccessary bits (see the diff for more info). Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray Williams (businessman)

Just as an FYI, I requested (and got) protection as the repeated POV pushing was really getting out of hand. I'll request unprotection (or you can if you like) if they discuss and reach consensus, or if they get bored and leave...:) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

BoNM - Australia.png The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait until the channel is actually rebranded as ABC1 – at the moment is still "ABC" or "Channel 2" until (supposedly) next week. The right time to change the brand in the article's Infobox is when the on-air identity of the channel has changed.  SEO75 [talk] 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

I have been trying to edit the caption for the abc1 logo at the bottom of page however I made a few mistakes so reverted myself. Samualm (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray Williams (businessman).

Maybe you should try a checkuser to confirm the sockpuppetry (or prove otherwise). · AndonicO Hail! 09:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening par proposed wording

Hi Lester, With regard to the Hicks opening par, it is not clear to me from your comment whether or not that you support the propsed wording. Of course you might in any case agree that it is an improvement from the current version? Wm (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Steady Eddy

Hi Lester - I noticed you commented on the deletion of an article on Steady Eddie. did you know that it already exists as Steady Eddy? Cheers, --Ossipewsk (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No wuckers. It didn't make sense to me for him not to have an entry. Any stand-up comedian who can make a living at it (no matter which country, language, etc) is probably "notable" for WIkipedia. --Ossipewsk (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudd

Would you mind removing your comment from the project page and on to Rudd's page? Timeshift (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing it, simply the wording. Timeshift (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GaryGazza

Yes I'm already well aware of him messaging all and sundry. He has made all sorts of wild accusations against me and admins. He can't spell Labor though so already his impression of any expertise has been severely damaged. He admits that Roxon simply has a Jewish father rather than practising the Jewish faith herself, but seems to think that still equates to her religion. I've been accused of conspiring with admins, being anti-semitic, and other crap here. Frankly, i'm prepared to let the discussion speak for itself rather than going on any sort of counter-crusade myself. Timeshift (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John Howard

Hi Lester, I think it's enough to just say "only former prime minister". You don't need to say "only living former prime minister" because no one expects the dead to rise and attend. ;) Somno (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

RfC SkyRing

There's a lot of material in there from December 2007 and we're in March 2008. I wasn't doing much on WP at that time, that's all. Perhaps you could break your commentary down a bit so that it relates more directly to the original claim made by Wm, and which has been endorsed by others? Eyedubya (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lakhbir Singh Rode

I have updated this article, with some newer news items on his activities. Perhaps this will help. Thanks for letting me know! mukerjee (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CH-DVD

I understand your scepticism, and will offer you this.... First of note is I only have a few hours of access to a computer signal access per day, if that, so I can't overly read and reference everything at once. I've labeled the page with the correct template, and I'll work on it as time allows over the next few days. Please, allow the time for this to be done as per wikipedia:AGF. I'll get there. I've moved my work off of what could be considered (one of?) your pet project of HD DVD both to limit my time to expanding and properly referencing the CH-DVD page, and to rightfully keep the two articles separate. Reverting while I try to do all the things you ask for in referencing the project page make it hard, if not impossible to finish the work needed; and the page does need work. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: John Howard RfC

Replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Lester! Just dropping by about some edit warring I noticed here. If you'd please be awesome and help me out; if someone (notably Skyring, because it seems you guys have a history) makes an edit you do not like, and you know they won't like it if you revert, don't revert. That way, I don't have to go around locking up pages. Instead, bring it to the person's attention, the talk page of the article, and/or me; that way we can reach a resolution. Reverting is practically useless in that he can undo it just as easily as you can do it; therefore, let's not edit war and instead let's reach a resolution. I don't know much about the history of this dispute, so if you could sum it up for me so I have an idea of what I'm mediating I'd appreciate that very much. Thanks! Have a great day, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So wait, they're reverting just because you're adding information? Or is there a deeper reason? They don't agree with the statement? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

I'm not sure i'm understanding what you're asking. The JH article was locked due to edit warring. Once the article was unlocked, people began to remove content again (ie: an admin who will remain nameless) despite a huge talkpage shitfight over it. Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey

I've been waiting a long time to weave his example in to an argument... :D Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Using [7][8][9][10] in your RFC would be my recommendation. Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama

I didn't vote b/c I thought it was clear what I thought and the aim was to seek editors who'd not already indulged in discussion. Eyedubya (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not be agreeing to the RfM, it is a waste of time if you and I are not even trying to work towards content that is acceptable to both of us. A list of specific concerns about the John Howard articles from you and Timeshift9 would be the most helpful contribution you could make at this time. --Surturz (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I will not be agreeing to the RfM and if the powers that be decide to discipline me, then so be it. I would prefer you and all relevant editors to list the issues that have caused them to insist on the POV tag, and I will do my best to make the appropriate changes. --Surturz (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lester. I have no issue with the procedural approach, but as has been demonstrated, its easily frustrated by people who don't wish to participate. Eyedubya (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RfM

Lester, I'm not agreeing to this, for reasons stated in the RfM. However, if you can withdraw the case and submit a fresh one with only two names as the parties involved, everything the same, then I'll agree to mediation. I'd much rather find ways of working with you than in seeing the situation continue to distintegrate. If some of my guesses about you are correct, then you must be experiencing considerable frustration. I don't want to see useful articles deteriorate into POV, but neither do I want to cause you undue anguish. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your comments on my talk page. The RfM you initiated (with multiple participants) isn't going to proceed without my involvement, so I guess that's it. Let's see if we can prceed on good will alone.

Could you look over my comments here and rewrite the US relationship section, beginning with the material you used originally, expanding it significantly along the lines indicated, and ending with the Obama incident? The US relationship is genuinely significant, it deserves a longer section, and the Obama material would then be a legitimate part of it. You did an excellent job on the original material, in that your writing and research skills are a lot better than those of the regular contributors to the article. Writing an article by arguing over every bloody word isn't working: even if agreed wording is ultimately found, the result is very poor as far as prose goes. --Pete (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't sell yourself short. After weeks of bickering, if you and I can co-operate on something and have it mutually satisfactory, I think anyone who disagrees is going to be out on a limb. I'm particularly nettled that your para on the US relationship was removed for what seems to be no good reason. You're a better writer of encyclopaedic prose than I, but if you feel disinclined, I'll have a go. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are useful guidelines - basically they reward good work - we don't have to run everything past a committee. And having seen what the committee has so far produced, frankly it is embarrassing to see such poor writing on Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png)

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate?

I share your disappointment that the RfM did not proceed. I do not see edit warring going on though. I am actually very impressed with the conduct on the talk page (and of article edits) of those editors who are still around discussing the issues. While the conversation does not feel as though it is progressing very fast I believe it is progressing. I seriously do believe that some of the way out is to have an article on the Howard Government and for some of the comments that people seek to include in the Howard article to be included in the more relevant articles on the topic - eg Immigration to Australia. Regards --Matilda talk 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I personally find your comment decided by edit waring, which is a completely unacceptable situation. I'm fed up with the censorship that's been going on, and rogue editors who would prefer to fight it out in a deletion war, like dogs over a scrap of meat, than to put it through the proper community process to gain consensus insulting. I do not like being accused of edit warring. I don't believe it is a practice I engage in. I am not engaged in a deletion war. I am prepared to engage in community processes and I ma prepared to discuss on the talk page for as long as it takes. So are quite a lot of others. Your comments are tedious and ill-judged as well as being insulting.Matilda talk 04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please point me to To generalise, some editors feel it is fine to resolve content disputes by deleting newly added and referenced content seconds after it was added.--Matilda talk 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mean "show me examples of where this rapid deleting has occurred"? yes please - not in the past but in the last week or better few days - I agree it has occurred in the past but I felt we were making real gains in conduct. I agree that it was disappointing that the RfC really didn't progress the content issues very far, disappointing that the RfM did not proceed, and I am as tired as almost everyone else concerning incivility that singles out individual editors for harassment - not very incivil but niggly! My proposal with the last behaviour is to not engage - talk about content only and remove behavioural comments to the archive ASAP. If there are concerns with another editor's behaviour then they should be raised with that editor on his/her talk page.--Matilda talk 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You wrote: I'd call these edits from the past day uncivil: #1, #2, #3. However in hindsight, after reading your post I agree with you that it was probably a pointless exercise to call for a behaviour change on the article talk page. The problems have been going on for years, and I guess the failure of the RfM concentrated my frustration by destroying a means to end it. The incivility continues. The Obama dispute has not been resolved, as we know the present state has only been reached by rapidly reverting the opposition. If any editor goes in and reverts the Obama content back to its original longer form, then we both know the rapid revert war would begin again. I've had enough of it. I look back though the contribution history of the article and see so many editors who were past involved in the article, who no longer go there. The reason given is because of the raging disputes. Even editors who were actively participating 3 weeks ago are staying away 'cause they think the issue may explode at any time and don't want to be associated. Also interesting that some of the main revert and incivility participants are now lying low for some reason. I think it's necessary for the article conduct to change before the article is open for everyone to participate in content changes. My belief is that things desperately need to change regarding conduct at the JH article. I have failed to solve anything with RfC. I have failed 3 times with RfM. I was silly today to think I could achieve an agreement to stop the incivility and rapid reverts. So the conduct situation is like a big elephant in the room that is too big to sweep under the carpet and pretend it's not there. What do you think? Do you think things need to change? How do you think all this can be resolved?--Lester 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree the diffs were less than totally civil and that was why I chose to archive the page so promptly and call for dicussion on the Talk page to focus on the content and not behaviour. I saw them in the realm of niggly though rahter than breaching WP:NPA. Any discussion on behaviour will be archived promptly to try to reduce the amount of distracting conversation. I certainly think things have changed and I think the trend needs to continue. The way I think it will continue is if editors do not engage when some less-than-mature editor starts with these behavioural comments. Take it to the user talk pages if necessary but keep it off the article talk page. I am optimistic that the separation of the Howard biography from the achievements and events of the Howard Government into two articles will help with some of thse content issues too. Regards --Matilda talk 04:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Rakkar

its not for 3r its BLP thats the issue, Gnangarra 07:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

John Howard

A number of reasons I suppose. The biggest of course is that he is no longer PM and this is no longer an election campaign. Pete is unfortunately obstinate, of course, but that's not a major factor. Truth be told, I don't edit very many Australian articles at the moment. My editing habits are a bit peripatetic. Slac speak up! 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant to move my list. Not yours. --Merbabu (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term "edit war" - please try to refrain from using the term on article talk pages

You seem to have used the term "edit war" quite often in article talk pages. For example recently . As I have mentioned before to you, article talk pages should focus on content rather than conduct. Conduct can be taken up with individual editors or on appropriate noticeboards - eg wp:3rr. It is my belief that your discussions in such terms contribute to the conduct issues rather than alleviate them. --Matilda talk 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matilda. You said I am causing "conduct issues", which is not my aim, and I didn't know I was (if that is the case). On the page you referred to, other editors were involved in an edit war, which I found a problematic situation, though editors seemed to be remaining under the 3RR limit. There was also an outing of an editor's real name on the talk page, which I thought was pretty disgraceful. I dunno. I pondered listing it on appropriate noticeboards, as you say, but in the end got nervous of entering those boards.--Lester 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think do not use the term "edit war" on talk pages. Preferably take conduct issues to individual's talk pages. If you think a conduct issue needs to be raised on an article talk page try not to use the term "edit war" (which you have done to my knowledge on at least 3 article pages. Be more specific as to what behaviour you are drawing attention to - eg "reverting of referenced content", "introducing POV content without substantiation", ... --Matilda talk 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, though I think the term 'edit war' is mentioned in Wikipedia policy, but I will nontheless try to avoid the term on discussion pages. --Lester 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ripplewiki

Hi - he hadn't been welcomed yet. He won't therefore know about our policies (though mind you seems very adept for a "new" editor eg knows to use talk pages, signs his posts, ...). I have welcomed him which provides info about the policies and also warned him for conflict of interest based on his remarks about speaking to people after the launch. Watch WP:BITE  :-) Thanks for escalating to WP:Aus politics. Regards --Matilda talk 05:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the language at the top of my page, sorry about that. Some editor (can't even remember who) called me that after I deleted similar language from the John Della Bosca article (it's what Della Bosca apparently yelled at a newspaper photographer, whilst riding his pushbike to work).
Regarding user:Ripplewiki, I sent him/her a message regarding 3RR. I tried to word it softly and hope I didn't bite a new user. I don't mean it as a warning, as I have no intention to taking it to the 3RRN, but I thought she/he needs to know about 3RR or somebody else may file a complaint. Regards, --Lester 05:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response - I noticed your message about the 3RR after my message to you above and I don't htink it bites - in fact I thought it was a vey reasonable message. I was just aware that s/he seemed to be very full on and therefore we all (myself included) need ot be careful. To date you are the editor who has engaged most with him. You are doing fine :-) --Matilda talk 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:New Right

Take a look at the minority movement wanting to set up shop under Australia in New Right. Timeshift (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Downer

I disagree he was the least popular leader up until his time. Newspoll shows his lowest Preferred PM was 21%. I don't know if it got worse than this (as they don't include all historical poll results) but I do know Howard was in the teens during his first stint in the leadership. And 21% looks completely respectable nowadays! Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"He holds the record for the most unpopular opposition leader in 36 years" (ACNielsen) is pretty generic, it doesn't state what measurement they used, approval rating, disapproval rating, preferred pm, etc. Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard's father - prod

What has changed - Howard is no longer PM. Howard's father does not meet notability criteria and I think that will be even more obvious now than it was withdrawn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyall Howard. If the prod does not survive I will list for AfD. as per my prod reasoning Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A. The AfD was withdrawn because there was some attempt to clean up the article. The article is clean but there sis till no independent notability conferred on the subject in my view. If he wasn't John Howard's father he would not have had an article. --Matilda talk 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that it is best taken to AfD - not a problem - haven't time to nominate now will probably have to be tomorrow Regards --Matilda talk 01:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You are welcome (as to being let know about the debate) - and my dispute with the points you make is of course not with you! You asked why as to the timing of the nomination. You will see from the page history of the article that I was the last editor when I corrected a reference - thus it was on my watch list when you made the change to the talk page. Although I agree with you that Prester John's remark was silly and pointless, he was not a banned or blocked editor at the time, the silliness of the comment reflects badly on him but is legitimately on the talk page as it discusses the article. Such comments are better ignored. regards --Matilda talk 05:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi - your additions to the Lyall Howard article are really good BUT I still don't think it makes him notable - the reports are in my mind all related to him being the PM's father at the time rather than his own notability. I hope you understand. Would you consider moving the text on the Copra to the article on the copra plantations - that is really where I think it belongs and helps to flesh it out. Maybe we could have a subsection on a case study or even the sentence Like many other ex-servicemen, Lyall Howard took up the offer and acquired two copra plantations on Karkar Island in New Guinea valued at the time at more than £100,000 (over AUD $4 million in today's currency) where 200 native labourers worked.[8] could be rephrased to read Many ex-servicemen took up the offer, for example Lyall and Walter Howard (father and grandfather of the subsequent PM Of Aust John Howard) acquired two copra plantations on Karkar Island in New Guinea valued at the time at more than £100,000 (over AUD $4 million in today's currency) where 200 native labourers worked.[8] --Matilda talk 22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note - I have prodded the other Chapman - claims of best-selling books not suporte by any cites - we will see. Regards --Matilda talk 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the argument you need to mount per WP:Bio is he falls within the scope of meeting "the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."" Note that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive and I feel we haven't satisfied the idea that the significant coverage is not related to his son but I think your argument is that he has been significantly covered. What you need to think through is why the precedent of For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles. which is cited int eh involid criteria does not apply in this case. Infancy vs life experience is one thing but I just don't think we would have an article on him if he wasn't John Howard's father and if we wouldn't then we shouldn't. Otherstuffexists is never grounds for keeping :-) --Matilda talk 00:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Madingogo

Hmm, you could be right - I noticed his reversion because 1981 Springbok Tour is on my watchlist, and the section he removed from that article is indeed one which I recall User:Prester John arguing about a while back: see [11] [12] --Stormie (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So when's he being banned? Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban : If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned. He has been blocked indefinitely. --Matilda talk 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prester John socks

Yes tag any that you are confident of with
{{sockpuppetproven|Prester John}}
- it will come up with a template that refers to contributions see User:Putz removal as an example.

You can tag the socks as soon as you see them. I am happy to act on anything if I am about but I am not here 24/7 :-) I suggest you seek help either at WP:AWNB which is on quite a few people's watchlists - including mine - and there wil be lots of takers to spring into action. Alternatively you could go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (he is vandalising!) or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for help. I think it also a good idea to continue to note at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prester John just in the form {{checkuser|Hypopostumus}} as you have been doing. I watch that page too.

Regards --Matilda talk 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree - undoing his maliciousness is tedious and that of course is just what he wants - to annoy. Got to feel sorry for somebody who is so pathetic! You will see that I have posted an alert at AWNB - any new socks I would let people know through that sub section with a meaningful edit summary and somebody is likely to get on to it quite quickly :-) --Matilda talk 21:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There is some good advice for you at WP:AWNB. Please don't let yourself get stressed. Don't revert the sock's edits yourself - just notify and somebody else will block and revert for you. Please continue contributing positively to the project instead of getting hassled :-) Regards --Matilda talk 05:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sherbet logo.svg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Sherbet logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

George page

Hi thanks for letting me know, I am really ticked off that an article like this about a person that has done so much for the community can be deleted because a editor (used lightly) wants the page gone...as he said " That's why I'm a Labor voter and want this page gone" and then denies it in the next reply, I hope it works out but if it doesn't you can start the page again as a new page and not list him as a Politician bio, use one from in here Wikipedia:Notability (people). We all know he is notable and the page will be back soon.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Thuringowacityrep. My reasons for restoration are different from yours. I don't care how much or how little the subject has done for the community. I also have nothing against user:Timeshift. My reasons for wanting to restore the article are because the subject was involved in a few quirky notable incidents that got national coverage. Those incidents stand the test of time. See what happens. --Lester 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify his gross misrepresentation, what I actually said was that I was not pushing any POV, I said I was a Labor voter in defense. I would think a Labor voter would be more sympathetic to keeping this article. Perhaps I didn't even need to say that as I know I am not pushing any POV and don't need to defend my views, despite the OAM I still believe he is still NN, my view is just one of the many who voted it to be deleted, the OAM hasn't changed anyone's view that I can see. As one contributor said at the deletion review, this is not AfD part 2. Timeshift (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard reverts

Hello, Gnangarra. I'm disappointed that revert wars have again broken out on the John Howard article. This is not the way to solve content disputes. It subverts the due processes of the talk page by the Wikipedia community. I don't think anyone believes the referenced content is pure vandalism. Therefore reverting is inappropriate. We know from experience with the hotbed Howard-related articles that when revert wars break out, there's no point everyone else discussing the content while reverting continues. We know there is a set Wikipedia process for content resolution disputes, and revert wars is not on the list of options.--Lester 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I made one edit to the John Howard article to remove information about the US not signing an international treaty this has nothing to do with JH. I take this accusation in the bad faith it was left, noting that Skyringwarn(oppose your POV) and Matlidano warning(agrees with your POV) have entered into a revert war on whether information about brief being included. Suggest instead of running around trying to influence the out come of a discussion by leaving such messages with people whos opinion doesnt co-inside with yours, go do something else. Gnangarra 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • cross posted
The reason for that is because new, well referenced and factual information does not deserve instant reversion, which is the method reserved for dealing with vandalism. I don't try to remove referenced facts from Kevin Rudd or any articles about politicians from the other side of politics. On all these articles on politicians, my attitude is the same: I'm against instant reversion, and in favour let the dispute resolution processes deal with any disagreements. --Lester 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I follow only Wikipedia policy, remember thats what are here for, go play somewhere else. Gnangarra 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi - I reverted only to stop de-escalation with another user involved and explained on his talk page and on the article talk page too. He added back in once and Gnagarra reverted out. I think we sould abide by 1RR Regards --Matilda talk 07:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus - a reply

Hi Orderinchaos. You recently said in another post: "Wikipedia's consensus procedure holds that in order to add something contentious to a contested page, one has to obtain consensus on the talk page first". Does it really say that? Just curious. I'd be interested to know if that is the case. Regards, --Lester 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted)

Technically, no, it is not covered by WP:CON, and we also have WP:BOLD. However, if something is going to massively elevate drama with little or no end benefit, it seems sensible to take the less dramatic route. In other contentious environments (I'm thinking particularly of the ones where nationalism is an issue), this sort of idea is generally held to be the case. Orderinchaos 11:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I wonder if that is the less dramatic route, or the most drama-filled route of all. A few Wikipedians seem to feel that editors must ask permission before posting new material, and they feel they are obeying Wikipedia rules by instantly reverting it. By hovering over the article and instantly reverting that content, it relieves the deleting editor of the need to justify that deletion on the talk page, as the revert is a more powerful tool that talk. Maybe Wikipedia rules need to more explicitly define the situations when reverting is acceptable, but I question whether instant deletions reduce drama or should be encouraged. When it comes to whole article deletions, when there is no consensus, or if there is doubt, the article is kept. Shouldn't that also apply to paragraph deletions?--Lester 22:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The point being made is that where a change to an article will create disruption, it should not be made without first gaining consensus. This particularly applies to subjects involving politics, religion or sex, where editors are likely to hold firm beliefs and keep a close watch against changes they consider offensive. Trying to push a change through by cloaking it under some wikitechnicality will not negate strong feelings. If a change is immediately reverted, an edit war to restore it is not the best response. Edit-warring does not generate consensus. Honest, open and informed discussion does. To address your point about article deletions, the situation is that where there is no consensus, the status quo obtains and the article is kept. One cannot add a paragraph and claim that this is now the status quo, not unless it remains unchallenged for a considerable period. --Pete (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the note on my page! Renee (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Useless

Well for an editor to say that was really in bad faith but I'm interesting in what they class as "Useless editors" since I've not seen any editor who is involved in the dispute being usless. All I see it as is typical political dispute between editors which can be rather useful but can be also unhelpful but not useless. Bidgee (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A reply

Firstly, thanks for your post - I realise you went to a lot of effort and thought with it. Oddly enough it's not so much my formal studies as my informal ones that have given me what I have - I use all the resources at my disposal, mostly the uni and State libraries, to educate myself on whatever takes my interest. This year it's been Queensland and Victorian local government, WA electoral and political history, and partially stemming from my actual studies, federalism and responsible government (as in the Westminster practice). I've had to revise stuff I learned in first year law school (that was as far as I got, by the way) as a fresh 17-year-old on how to note up legislation and all the various different bits and identifying the relevant case law, and then reading Hansard and contemporary newspapers to get more of a feel for how it came to take the shape it did. By the time I get to honours I should have a mine of stuff to draw on, as well as a hell of a lot of practical research experience. However, my present level of formal studies wouldn't look so impressive on knol :)

You were talking about community processes and a phenomenon which occurs in many areas I edit came to mind - people gravitate to where they want to edit, and some areas are either not attended at all, or only by one editor. In some of the areas I edit, community participation of any kind will probably never occur - I'm literally the only contributor, probably always will be, and struggle to find even people to give me second opinions on my own work. I know I'm far from the only person in this situation, as little pockets of content all over Wiki are being developed by individual contributors almost in isolation which form useful portals of knowledge for readers but attract negligible editing attention. One would hope the people developing that content in isolation have the competence to make it work, and are not pushing some party line or agenda. That, if you think about it, poses quite a danger as there's no checks or balances whateoever.

As for your comments regarding another editor, I resile from any claim that I have supported that user or their activities. I don't support users, I support what I believe to be right. In the particular situation we found ourselves in with the foreign editors, just as we have resisted efforts by people like Prester John to dictate to us what should be in an article which is owned by the community as a whole and not by any one editor, in this case we resisted an organised campaign - one of the most blatant and nasty I've ever seen on the Australian project beyond the usual suspects, in fact - to slant the article in a particular way. Sometimes a bit of toughness is required on that front. In the course of that, I found serious reasons to doubt one of the users had any good motive to be on Wikipedia at all. When in the bizarre situation where people's lifelong Wikienemies suddenly are fighting the same cause for the same reasons, opportunities open up to resolve other conflicts which previously existed. In essence, that's what I have been trying to encourage.

There comes a time when I have to think about my own role in the matter, and there is no way that I could use my extra tools on anything connected to the situation - no matter how or on who I used them I would be accused of partiality or involvement. I'm much better at trying to use my personality to try and resolve the long standing conflicts and use my political knowledge and academic skills to help improve the article. I think some people have been fighting for so long that the fact that the real enemy has gone the way of the dodo and we're still fighting their old battles has been completely missed. With this comes an opportunity - last week was the first time ever that I have seen editors in our environment actually talking to each other without using words like "winning" and "sides". In fact I think some (Surturz comes to mind here) were almost stunned that people they'd grown so used to as adversaries shared their own views so strongly when it came to this business. There's a lot that will be disagreed on, but if we could focus on building on our rather unusual foundation of mutual consideration, and try and make it something which can work at all or most time rather than simply when confronting a common enemy, the problems that have dogged this article for a year or more may be something we can look later on as historical. My personal goal, odd as it may be, is to see John Howard at FAC at some point future, with text everyone can agree on as fair. Orderinchaos 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all your good work in attempting to raise the standard of behaviour on the Aus. political articles. I have added a comment to yours on Orderinchaos talk page. Cheers. I am completely snowed under at the moment by personal concerns but I would like to think that I can get back to it in some way at some time. Wm (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

Thanks for your comments - replied on my talk page --Matilda talk 02:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

and again :-) Thanks Matilda talk 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Who Weekly

I'll see if I can find a copy, I did have one but it was 12 years ago so might be hard to find. --Canley (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tjandamurra O'Shane (2nd nomination)

Thanks for the tip, i'll remember it in future. I'm trying to learn how everything is set out but as you could imagine its quite confusing to a new user. Thank you! --MattWT 09:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

response to your proposal

Hi - you wrote to me (and similarly to others hence my reply here):

Hello Matilda. My own reading of the problems that plague the John Howard article is that wild disagreements start when someone deletes referenced content soon after it was added. I'm not concerned if someone deletes vandalism or unreferenced content. But if the content is referenced to a major reliable source, then it should be allowed to remain in the article until the community has made a decision about what to do with it. Do you think that is a good idea? When I think back on the major article content conflicts, most times it was not an argument about whether the facts were true or not. Instead the arguments were mainly about whether the fact is notable or relevant. For example, nobody disputed whether Howard criticised Obama, or whether Obama criticised Howard. By leaving the content in, it would exist for a few weeks until the community process is finished. That would usually just involve discussion, though for more controversial content, it may involve RfC and RfM. Yes, it is an involved process, but I think it should be given a go, rather than everyone deleting/reverting newly added content, and then fighting over the scraps like hyenas. Is it a good idea for everyone to agree not to quickly delete newly added well referenced content? --Lester 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In the most recent skirmish there was questioning as to whether the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was indeed a reliable source. Some believed the material was a BLP violation, others merely thought it was undue weight. There seemed to be misunderstanding of what I as an editor was trying to achieve - which was that Howard was criticised for his role in the invasion of Iraq. In hindsight there was indeed a much better way to achieve that (and I think I have got there unreverted for nearly 20 hours! and at least one editor seems to agree with it [13] - the distinction being in this case That Australians largely appeared to have been against the war but Howard went in anyway is very important, and makes the other criticisms look trivial. ... inclusion of poll data to support this point ... contributes towards a much more mature article in comparison to a listing of “notable” criticisms and commentators.)

In contributing to the reverting I did not help. I think Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which was suggested to me by Gnangarra is much better and I take that feedback on.

In thinking specifically about if the content is referenced to a major reliable source, then it should be allowed to remain in the article until the community has made a decision about what to do with it - it doesn't matter if the content is in or out as long as it is discussed until resolution is reached that it should be in or out.

I have suggested taking such matters off to sub-pages to let them be thrashed out and being very strict to discuss content and not conduct. An article RfC of course focuses on article content too so much the same effect.

My concern is the talk page got bogged down and very very hostile.

I still don't like the Obama comment being in - I think it is undue weight. Not everybody agrees with me though so ... ;-)

regards --Matilda talk 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matilda. The reason I think it's better for newly referenced content to remain, is because reverting is a fast change. The process needs to be slowed. One person making a fast revert invites another to make a fast counter revert. Reading the Bold Revert Discuss essay, it appears to be more a call to 1. Be Bold, 2. Wait to see if anyone reverts or changes 3. If they do, then discuss. The simple title may give the wrong impression, and give permission for some to indulge in tendentious reverting. I note your subpage suggestion. I can't see it would do much harm, but I'm also don't see an advantage. We could try it if you feel it would reduce incivility and reverting. After someone has reverted newly referenced content, the discussions usually become wild, unruly, and in the end often inconclusive, as nobody seems to be giving any ground to the other side. The reason there is no ground given is that the deleting editors hold the upper hand by making sure zero of the other person's content remains, which is not a compromise. Not a good beginning for a discussion.--Lester 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to give opinion at Talk:Wayne Swan?

Timeshift (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chardonnay socialist

Well yes, I am of the affluent middle class, I live in an apartment in the CBD of Adelaide, and have a social conscience, and dislike Howard. It is more the social issues that makes me dislike the Liberal Party than anything else. If that makes me a socialist, well... :-) Timeshift (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought i'd add a bit of commentary. Months in to Turnbull's leadership, it's been shown that the Liberal leader no longer controls the party, the party controls the leader. The Liberals wouldn't dare let the line be blurred. They are proud of their social conservatism and won't let Turnbull put his own policies in to place. Even if he is more socially left, his party won't let it show through policy, so to me, the Liberal Party is the same Liberal Party, whether it be run by Howard, Turnbull, or Mickey Mouse. Policy is controlled by the majority right of the party and will continue to be for the foreseeable future - Howard made sure of that. Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He can't really step to the right can he? He's just dwelled in Nelson and Howard's footsteps, has any policy really changed? There's the faux WorkChoices conversion and not much else. Whatever he loses in left Liberal votes in his electorate, he'll pick up in votes from those who change simply because he's now leader of the party (note previous leaders' electorates). And Wentworth might be the least conservative Liberal electorate, but I couldn't imagine it being "Australia's least conservative electorate" - i'd hand that to perhaps Melbourne, Sydney, or Grayndler. Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Garrett

Thanks for that - I think the reference was on an edition of Compass on ABC; but doesn't matter for the moment. JRG (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazy articles

Agreed unreferenced articles should be deleted. Probably renominating individual clubs is more likely to be successful than leagues.--Grahame (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never investigated deletion review process.--Grahame (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 72

Hi. The article was moved to my userspace by the closing admin when I requested that they reconsider their deletion. They wanted it to go through the deletion review process but allowed its editing in userspace. Please contribute your thoughts in the deletion review discussion, although the article's reinstatement appears almost inevitable at this point. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Assertions of Due weight - it's what we say, not how many words we use to say it

Lester, I was not aware that Kevin Rudd placed “personal” importance on the LGBT issues, but that’s may well be my own ignorance. So, if it is indeed the case, then perhaps we need to say this in the article in place of the details of the politics. Can you provide such verification? Would be good. cheers

Do you understand my point about asserting notability? Do you agree? IMO, how much is said is less important than what is said. Indeed, say hypothetically that Rudd saw LGBT rights as the most important issue, then all the article needs to say is “Rudd considers LGBT rights are the most important issue facing the country, and the government proposed X, Y, and Z reforms”. Done, importance asserted short sharp and sweet. Who cares about the voting process?

Another example of just getting to the point rather than asserting importance by word count, is this section of the History of Indonesia article. Although I wrote this part, I now realise that the punchline is in the 4th paragraph: Ie, the coup and subsequent killings removed Sukarno’s largest pillar of support. Yet, I took 3 paragraphs to get there. While these events are one of the pivotal moments of modern Indonesia history, I took my time getting to the point, and even then it’s not that clear. It could do with some work, and I see parallels with the Rudd article. --Merbabu (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rudd mentioned the LGBT issue quite a few times in interviews prior to becoming PM. Not the most important issue, but he said it was his personal belief that he didn't approve of LBGT marriage. There was previously something in the article, which must have been deleted last year.
Re notability: I agree with you that notability should be asserted, but I disagree with your criteria. I'd like to see an agreed set criteria that can be applied to all political articles, to stop the party-political bias. Notability needs to be judged by how the issue is covered in the outside media. Transient news comes and goes fairly quickly. Events that get mentioned in the news time and again, years after the event happened, with opinion and commentary from reliable sources is always notable in my books. For example, if the New York Times runs an opinion piece about something that happened in Australia 3 years ago, it's bound to be notable.--Lester 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my point about notability was not about criteria for inclusion but about word count. I.e., I’m not suggesting that Rudd and LGBT rights is not noteworthy, rather I am saying that 2 or 3 sentences of well-worded info that clearly asserts relevance of LGBT rights to the article subject (ie, Kevin Rudd) is superior to 20 sentences of waffle.
Another example would be John Howard losing his seat – we don’t need to write 20 sentences about it, we just say that “he lost his seat and was only the second PM to do so”. Done, notability/relevance of his loss asserted and blindingly obvious in 1 sentence.
The only reason to write more info is if it is relevant and informative, not to assert importance (among other reasons, no one will ever agree on a scale of word counts to assert comparative importance of issues - can you imagine?).
As for media coverage, that can only but one criteria for inclusion – it’s not the sole criteria, and can only be used in consideration of said other criteria. --Merbabu (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the criteria for notability is, there should be some guidelines for political articles, to at least attempt to remove party political reasons for inclusion/exclusion.--Lester 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Re Howard losing seat: Ever noticed it's the wrong way 'round. The intro says "he lost his seat", as if that's the most important thing. Then, almost as an aside it says "he also lost government". It should be reversed. "He lost government in Nov 2007. He also lost his seat" (like Stanley Bruce).--Lester 03:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm – I don’t mind either way around. Your accidental double mention though is kinda of funny given the discussion about due weight and word count. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

John Robertson (New South Wales politician)

Crystal Clear action edit add.png

Thank you for creating John Robertson (New South Wales politician). The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:LogoStandards.gif)

You've uploaded File:LogoStandards.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Creative vandalism

Haha. Timeshift (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You spotted that one quickly. I think the original is the best photo of John Howard there is (at least the most flattering)!--Lester 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sherbet logo.svg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Sherbet logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame. I loved your comments at the AfD at Tjandamurra O'Shane after User:RMHED nominated the article.

See the new little Life Preserver Life Preserver.svg at the top of your page?

Coding:


Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:TAA Logo.svg

Thanks for uploading File:TAA Logo.svg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sonia McMahon

The only places I look for photos are the places I list on my userpage. The US ones turn up nothing, Picture Australia has some but I don't reckon any would be over 50 years ago. The last one is a flickr image that you seem to have found which states there are no known copyright restrictions. The repository for the image is the Blue Mountains Library, and the image was uploaded to flickr by the Blue Mountains Library, and they say there are no known copyright restrictions so I don't see why there would be an issue with this image. Timeshift (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All the eye candy in Australian political life goes to the straight people, both past and present. Where's the Pliberseks and Ellis' for gay people? *sigh* Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

SkyAirWorld in trouble

I've left a note on Talk:SkyAirWorld. Bidgee (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whereabouts...

Missing in action? Timeshift (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Hi, I notice you previous expressed an opinion on the Talk:Tony Blair page 'Regarding the war crimes accusation'. Would you consider revisiting the page as the dispute has reared its ugly head again, with the objector insisting there was never a consensus on the issue. It's at the bottom of the page. Thanks. 2writer (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

There's many-a war missing your contribution :) Timeshift (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Office Open XML free and Open

You have removed the claim that Office Open XML is free and open international ISO/IEC standard. Your edit summary states: removed "free and open". First, the reference was a primary source, original research, and deletion was previously discussed)

  • First, Primary sources are sources very close to an event, not sources close to listing of standards
  • Secondly it is not original research as the information you removed was directly conforming with the existing articles on free and open standards.
  • Thirdly, a deletion was discussed on a previous text that did not referecne the ISO/IEC standard.
  • Fourthly the deletion was discussed but in that you did refuse to give valid reasons for the removal

I suggest you resinstate the information as all your argument are actually incorrect. hAl (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sherbet logo.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Sherbet logo.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Ferguson

G'day Lester, thanks for your note. After a bit of digging around, I've come to the conclusion that I moved it because there were actually three notable Dennis Fergusons around the traps — our old mate who is the subject of your article; a (still-) sitting member of the Tennessee State Legislature; and one of the founders of Juniper Networks. Probably at the time I intended to contribute to articles on all three but in the end, for reasons that only my 2006 doppelganger can answer, I didn't follow through.

The original Ferguson article was deleted as a "BLP nightmare", for reasons which may become clear if you have a read through the deleted history. You'll need to keep a close eye on the new one, for his sake and his victims'. I'd suggest it might also be worthwhile putting some effort into an article for the Tennessee chap, if only so his potential voters don't start confusing him with a rock spider. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dennis Ferguson

Updated DYK query On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dennis Ferguson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Epistar

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Epistar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft data loss 2009

Have you considered nominating Microsoft data loss 2009 at WP:DYK? It definitely meets the size requirement, is pretty interesting, and is well-referenced. Mm40 (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mm40. Thanks for your kind words. I haven't thought of DYK. The article will no doubt expand as more info comes to hand.--Lester 11:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've seen your nomination, and thank you for your contributions thus far. Great work! Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Mm40. Best wishes.-Lester 12:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Microsoft data loss 2009

Updated DYK query On October 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microsoft data loss 2009, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft data loss 2009

Can you please not edit war over a title? First of all this is silly, and secondly you're not giving any explanation on why this name better suits the article than Sidekick data loss 2009. I see we're two people thinking the latter would ber more suitable (that how I've heard it on the media), while your argument consists of "Original article name". Please use the talk page when you disagree with more than one person. Thanks. -- Luk talk 07:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Luc. I replied on the article page Lester 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thx! Replied there :) -- Luk talk 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stylus (computing)

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Stylus (computing), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mootros (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

False positive! Sincere apologies! Mootros (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

stylus (computing)

Dear Lester, my apologies about the erroneous redirect of the stylus (computing) article. It was my mistake, well spotted! However, there is an actually still a problem with this article. Please see the talk page. I would be delighted if you could with help the planned changes. Many thanks. Yours, Mootros (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mootros. I replied on the article discussion page. --Lester 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Smartphone 2009.svg

File:Smartphone 2009.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Smartphone 2009.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Smartphone 2009.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Spence (Australian politician)

Hi Lester. I'm a bit concerned about the notability of Spence, but since the article is actually quality (as opposed to "Such and such was the CEC candidate for Barwon in 1984"), I've raised it at WP:AUP and I'd love to hear your input. Thanks, Frickeg (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy note, Frickeg. No doubt a deletion debate will ensue.--Lester 01:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Strategic Logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Strategic Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 07:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AA331

Hey, no problem. I'm going to do some digging around and get the METAR in force at the time. Reports that heavy rain may have left a wet runway. Also trying to find details about the a/c involved. Maybe you could fix the bare urls? Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've bashed the article into something resembling a shape now Face-smile.svg. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pixelqi

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Pixelqi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'See also' sections

Please see User_talk:Jeff79#Deletion_of_.27See_also.27_sections.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: hAl

There's not much I can do here other than play whack-a-mole. These addresses are too spread apart to do a rangeblock, if they all even are hAl (I can tell without looking that third IP is almost certainly not, as it edits the wrong articles and hasn't edited at all since October). If you do have concerns of continued sockpuppetry, please open a formal WP:SPI case, or report them to WP:AIV for faster action. Posting addresses for me to check and/or block here is not entirely appropriate. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lester/Lyall Howard

Were you going to do something with the userspace draft you created? You haven't touched it in over two years. 98.248.41.72 (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The finished article is at Lyall Howard. I left it in user space because of repeated attempts to have the article deleted from Wikipedia. I guess it's probably time to delete the user space version.--Lester 11:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Information.svg Hello Lester! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,679 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Clive Shakespeare - Find sources: "Clive Shakespeare" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sonia and mayor.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sonia and mayor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Mikemoral♪♫ 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Tony Abbott

3RR sign.JPG You are in violation of the three-revert rule. Stop edit-warring or you may be blocked. Ottre 03:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you supply me with some diffs, please. I can't see where I "violated the 3 revert rule" as you claim.--Lester 03:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Per your request, I've reduced the protection level to semi. Please see my note on the talk page as to future editing of the article. I've also added an edit notice which will be visible whenever anyone tries to edit the article. WP:ANI has been informed of this, and admins may come down hard on those who do not edit the article constructively. I'm not singling you out here, it applies to all editors of whatever political persuasion. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lester. You have new messages at Bradjamesbrown's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Design Barnstar.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For creating airline logos and adding them to articles, I hereby award you this Barnstar. YSSYguy (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Post courier logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Post courier logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rode logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rode logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Lithium-titanate battery

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Lithium-titanate battery, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:7mate logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:7mate logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7

If you actually look at my changes, you'll see they're not a whitewash; they're more a correction of tone and grammar. My structure is also much more sensible. The article in its current condition is a mess; nothing more than a list of missing features. Critical reaction to these belongs in the Reception section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCookable (talkcontribs) 12:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you - my changes really are relatively minor. All that's changed is some rephrasing and spelling/grammar correction and a few new nuggets of information. I haven't removed anything. Maybe it looks like it because I've done some restructuring. Maybe I shouldn't have gone ahead with the restructuring, but I can't understand all my changes, which I see as mainly corrections and making the text more lucid, going back to the old messy way just because I rearranged things a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCookable (talkcontribs) 13:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is called Filabustering. I knew you would try and stop the changes. Please consider the changes from a user POV. The changes are for the better. What is Ironic, is that you alerted WP:AN/I of the potential trouble. Now, it is you that is the trouble. Sorry if this seemed like a threat, it is not, but it is a suggestion. Thanks--intelati(Call) 15:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
User:intelati, what is the point of coming to someone's talk page, and blasting out the comment "it is you that is the trouble". Really. --Lester 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I am tired of you causing trouble for no apparent reason. That is the only reason I would comment on your talkpage.--intelati(Call) 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that I take criticism personally and try to CHANGE. That is all--intelati(Call) 15:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the comments that I Have made. What the website did is make you a Scapegoat. For that I personally Thank you for continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. What I take offense at is the continued attempts to control the article. That is the ONLY reason for the comments--intelati(Call) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to maintain my improved version of the article and revert all your reverts until I am banned. Your obsession with keeping the article a mess is ridiculous. kthxbai CalumCookable (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Finally we are on the same page. Now we can start Finish the MAJOR overhaul of the article. BTW, thanks for "fight" and I am truly sorry for accusing you of being a troll.--intelati(Call) 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When reviewing an entire article, it takes time, but that's how it goes. People bring up an issue, we discuss it, reach some kind of consensus, then move to the next issue. The difficult part is when there is a large rush of people to the article, who want to "cleanse" it in one go, or delete entire sections of referenced material. I've praised the editors who discuss particular points that need changing. Some others have infuriated me by deleting sections while the discussion is still happening regarding those sections. It circumvents the whole discussion. But people can add as much positive stuff as they like to the article, as long as they back it up with good references. You may notice I'm not trying to delete, minimize or hide positive aspects about it.--00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm still confused by what happened that made such a rocky start.?.--intelati(Call) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Glad we got through that in one peace. Thanks again.--intelati(Call) 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There have already been numerous press articles about those "missing features" in WP7. I think that those articles will increase after it is released next month. I would have preferred it to be in point form with the original title, but it was a compromise to let the issue settle. Talk page discussions can get tedious, but it's a better way to do it than the mass editing frenzy like happened last week.--Lester 04:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll be honored to act as bouncer beside you :).--intelati(Call) 04:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Acer Liquid A1

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Acer Liquid A1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nat682 (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Midnight

Sources have been added. You might want to take another look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ringtones/recent changes

I was just a little confused on what kind of ring-tones were talking about. Ringtones, as in OS built-in sounds that you can change, or something that user can customize (ie. add their own music/audio file and use that as their ring tone.) WP7 does support pre-loaded OS ringtones that you can change. But the way Windows Mobile handles ring tone-changing in the settings is as if it doesn't support the functionality out-of-the-box (being an actual Windows Mobile 6.5 user), but I guess the issue there is that Windows Mobile 6.x is the furthest thing from being user-friendly.

Also, I made a change about the SD cards. You can remove the SD Card physically but the data on the phone gets wiped out because MS engineered the OS to have one, unified file system for storage. I'm not sure that it makes sense to have it under that section because it was an engineering decision. Maybe it just needs to be shorted/simplified and re-worded.

And lastly, the part about Silverlight support in WM maybe incorrect. I noticed in the WP7 discussion page, you gave this Link to show that WM supports Silverlight. That was over 2 years ago and Silverlight was never natively implemented into any version of Windows Mobile, it was a project and it was canceled. Skyfire on Windows Mobile supports Silverlight playback, but you have to download a 3rd party app (Skyfire), which is not built-in to Windows Mobile as a native feature of the OS, and so the article potentially miscommunicates that Silverlight was a native feature of Windows Mobile when it actually wasn't, as told by a Microsoft employee on the official Silverlight message-boards. (And again, being an actual WM 6.5 user, IE Mobile 6 or any WM apps do not support Silverlight at all.)

Thanks for the feedback, though. Better than an editing war where we cant properly explain our actions ( and don't have enough room to write :) ). --Interframe (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PNG Post Courier logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PNG Post Courier logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:140206 PC frontpage.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:140206 PC frontpage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skywest Airlines logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skywest Airlines logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dunlop logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dunlop logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Strategic Airlines logo A.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Strategic Airlines logo A.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WIRES logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WIRES logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

Hi Lester, I tried to make an addition to the section that addresses Pauline Hanson's books. Namely The Truth. No it's a no go. It must be the "Paint Pauline In A Positive Light" month. Sad that Wikipedia people are over zelous. (Mister Real (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free image File:Virgin Blue logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Virgin Blue logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of off-field incidents involving rugby league players for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of off-field incidents involving rugby league players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of off-field incidents involving rugby league players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:V Australia logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:V Australia logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Symbian logo 4.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Symbian logo 4.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Darcy Dugan 1949.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Darcy Dugan 1949.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ansett logo.svg

Hi Lester. I'm concerned the colours in the file you've uploaded. I feel the yellow of the A should extend to the bottom on the logo, and the other colours generally seem off. Take a look here: http://www.superbrands-brands.com/volII/IMAGES/logo_ansett_lrg.JPG. I'm no expect however! Are you able to fix this? I'll be listing the image for deletion. Thanks Ansett (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Ansett. Give me a week or two and I'll correct it.-Lester
    • Done. Orange gradient extended lower. Gradients are somewhat hard to define, and you will find variations among official Ansett documents as to how far down the gradient goes. Cheers. -Lester

Orphaned non-free media (File:Qantas Club logo.svg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Qantas Club logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Study New Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Study New Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Study New Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rode logo.svg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Rode logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Access to Information Central Clearing House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clearing house
Biosafety Clearing-House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clearing house
Clearing House, California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clearing house
Clearing House (EU) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clearing house
Clearing house (finance) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clearing house
Fire Safe California Grants Clearinghouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clearing house
Railway Clearing House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clearing house

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seoul Semiconductor logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Seoul Semiconductor logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:City Of Sydney logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:City Of Sydney logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Old nuttelex factory.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old nuttelex factory.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Challis (activist)

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article John Challis (activist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:BLPNOTE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LordFixit (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pacific Brands logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pacific Brands logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MediaTek logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MediaTek logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of Android devices

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Comparison of Android devices has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Partial list of randomly selected items. Article cannot possibly aim for completeness.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. uKER (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of Android devices

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Comparison of Android devices has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is an indiscriminate list of random items that can't even dream of achieving completeness.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. uKER (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of Android devices for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of Android devices is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android devices until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. uKER (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kogan logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kogan logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AirTran Airways logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AirTran Airways logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nichia logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nichia logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skytrans logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skytrans logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FBi radio logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FBi radio logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Copra workers 1948.jpg listed for discussion

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Copra workers 1948.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)